I love Empty4

[AnotherBrian]

They were the first ones out of the gate (I assume) that had wide broker acceptance and programming such that a knuckle head like me could write experts. If they all started at the same time I don't think Empty4 would be where they are today. Actually, I know they wouldn't be. I can deal with all the wrinkles but this auto update to seemingly untested software isn't helping anyone.

[Pedigree]

Sorry, I was frustrated with it and was being sarcastic.

Oh dear...! I was just hoping you'll be the lone voice to stand up and say something nice about it for once! .........

Really Pedigree??

Do you trade a live account?
I do, and I sure don't appreciate a platform that randomly shuts down or that changes my settings or removes my EA's...that sort of behaviour cost's money, money that I have worked extremely hard for. Of course my money is a mere pittance in the massive ocean of traders that metaquotes has using their platform and if one trader loses their money due to platform failure, they really don't care!

Metaquotes responded to a message from one of our members a week ago saying it was aware of the memory leak problem and it was being fixed in an update on the 10th October. It's still not fixed...so where does the responsibility lie now? MQ has acknowledged the problem, but have they sent a warning message out to traders (via their brokers or directly via their platform)? No they haven't, nor have the brokers...I actually wonder where the liability would be if a trader decided to take legal action to recoup losses that may occur when platforms crash/settings change etc when metaquotes have been fully aware of the situation? Metaquotes are making a huge amount of money of their platform, the very least they can do is offer a stable, reliable platform and offer at least a modicom of customer service.

As for traders migrating to other platforms, unfortunately when brokers are not offering any alternatives then that makes it difficult.

Hi Shelley,

I am sorry to hear that you've lost money on account of Empty4's shortcomings. I know how that must feel and commiserate fully. I would like to believe that they were solely due to Empty4’s shortcomings and not some other avoidable happenstance.

Yes, I trade a live account - all the time. I also use a few EAs to manage my trades and have always done. I have not had any problems with them hitherto or in the face of the many recent updates by MQ. Yes, there have been the odd mishap now and again resulting in loss, but it has been entirely up to my mismanagement, not Empty4's. I currently have installed build 722 and it (and its predecessors) have been stable with no crashes or sudden platform closures.

I do not use trading EAs on any of my live accounts. I have one or two running in demo accounts but I have not noticed any abnormal behaviour from them either. All my instances of Empty4 are installed on C:\ (not C:\Program Files) so updates do not happen unless I give them a go-ahead. And in any case, I lately decided to allow all updates because I reason that ultimately, I will have to accept MQ's changes anyhow. I have all my satisfactory instances of Empty4 backed-up at least once every week, so if any update brings some unpalatable circumstance, I can always go back to my back-ups for the mean time.

Initially, my major grouse with MQ's post-509 changes was what I thought to be the inability to use previously existing dlls. But to my absolute delight, I discovered, quite by accident, that previous dlls will work as usual if you create the folder structure of Experts-Libraries in the root folder of the post-509 platform and install the dlls of your experts and indis there AS WELL AS in the Libraries folder of the MQL folder. And so now, my dlls are back in full service.

One other issue that would have made the use of Empty4 an absolute pain in the you know where is that of slow execution and freezes due to CPU-intensive indicators and EAs. But thanks to Gary – Gary if you are reading this, please give yourself a smacking kiss for me again and…… may Xmas come early for you this year!!!!!! Gary’s snippet of code shared at http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3 ... 121#p67121 absolutely takes my breath away. In its glorious simplicity, I see it as nothing short of a ground-breaking masterly stroke of genius. With this, instead of your indis updating with every tick, they only update so many times a second as YOU set. Can you imagine what a difference that makes to your platform? If you have not yet implemented this for your indis, take it from me, you’ve been doing yourself great injustice.

For me, this code snippet has been a life-changing experience from the point of view of using Empty4. I don’t know what I would have done without it. It’s not unthinkable that slow-downs and freezes due to a struggling CPU may cause some EAs to malfunction and this is an issue that absolutely needs to be eliminated. Any template starts to slow down or get sluggish and I simply go in and increase the pulse period of one or two indis on it and my CPU is smiling again. This code was unobtrusively shared at the time but I’ll say it again: IT DESERVES A LAUREL WREATH. A big, big “thank you” again to Gary for it.

Perhaps a missing key could also be simplicity. When an EA has a conglomerate of options, it is not hard to imagine that they could unwittingly get in each other’s way now and again, even with "tested" software. To manage big funds with such an EA is to introduce more risks to trading than needs be taken. Keeping it simple can only help matters.

So, all told, I have been using Empty4 for 5 years now and I would be speaking tongue-in-cheek if I say anything else other than that I am simply grateful for it; and don’t forget – this is free software we are talking about. I am sure that the folk who are at odds with it have their reasons. Here’s a chance to air and share some of them; to tell just what it is that so irks them and compels the dark views they’ve come to hold. It would be nice also to say why, if it is really that bad, they have been taking all the C R A P and not moved on to the greener pastures of better trading software. That might be the more rewarding thing to do rather than repeatedly lambasting MQ at every opportunity.

[Pedigree]

I can deal with all the wrinkles but this auto update to seemingly untested software isn't helping anyone.

You probably have your Empty4 instances located in c:\Program Files. Move them to c:\ and you must permit an update for it to happen.

By the way, my laugh of the day came from the bit in your signature:

Dear Optimist, Pessimist, and Realist:
While you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it!
Sincerely,
The Opportunist

......very apt.

[AnotherBrian]

I can deal with all the wrinkles but this auto update to seemingly untested software isn't helping anyone.

You probably have your Empty4 instances located in c:\Program Files. Move them to c:\ and you must permit an update for it to happen.

By the way, my laugh of the day came from the bit in your signature:

Dear Optimist, Pessimist, and Realist:
While you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it!
Sincerely,
The Opportunist

......very apt.

I was referring to build 711, has given me similar problems to what Shelley has. To release an unstable build for a trading platform where cash is at stake seems it irresponsible.
Glad you caught a laugh for the day:)

[SteveHopwood]

One other issue that would have made the use of Empty4 an absolute pain in the you know where is that of slow execution and freezes due to CPU-intensive indicators and EAs. But thanks to Gary – Gary if you are reading this, please give yourself a smacking kiss for me again and…… may Xmas come early for you this year!!!!!! Gary’s snippet of code shared at http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3 ... 121#p67121 absolutely takes my breath away. In its glorious simplicity, I see it as nothing short of a ground-breaking masterly stroke of genius. With this, instead of your indis updating with every tick, they only update so many times a second as YOU set. Can you imagine what a difference that makes to your platform? If you have not yet implemented this for your indis, take it from me, you’ve been doing yourself great injustice.

You have to remember to declare the variable as static i.e.
static datetime LastUpdate = 0;

otherwise all you are doing is declaring a variable as 0 at every tick, and so TimeCurrent() - LastUpdate is always >10 and so the code has no effect.

[garyfritz]

Quite right, Steve. That's what I get for posting untested code. I went back and edited that post so nobody else gets caught by my goof.

Glad you figured it out and it worked well for you, Pedigree!

[Pedigree]

Quite right, Steve. That's what I get for posting untested code. I went back and edited that post so nobody else gets caught by my goof.

Glad you figured it out and it worked well for you, Pedigree!

I didn't figure it out Gary, I'm not that smart!!! You tidied it all up at the time a few posts later: http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3 ... 210#p67210
I should have quoted this also. Apologies.

Hope you are keeping well.
Regards

[AnotherBrian]

One other issue that would have made the use of Empty4 an absolute pain in the you know where is that of slow execution and freezes due to CPU-intensive indicators and EAs. But thanks to Gary – Gary if you are reading this, please give yourself a smacking kiss for me again and…… may Xmas come early for you this year!!!!!! Gary’s snippet of code shared at http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3 ... 121#p67121 absolutely takes my breath away. In its glorious simplicity, I see it as nothing short of a ground-breaking masterly stroke of genius. With this, instead of your indis updating with every tick, they only update so many times a second as YOU set. Can you imagine what a difference that makes to your platform? If you have not yet implemented this for your indis, take it from me, you’ve been doing yourself great injustice.

You have to remember to declare the variable as static i.e.
static datetime LastUpdate = 0;

otherwise all you are doing is declaring a variable as 0 at every tick, and so TimeCurrent() - LastUpdate is always >10 and so the code has no effect.

For my own learning, I understand this is true when the variable is declared inside the function, including the start() function . But when it is declared globally, like at the very top of the code and outside all functions, the value is retained on every tick. I'm referring to EA's though, I don't really fully understand the indi code, maybe it's different?

[SteveHopwood]

For my own learning, I understand this is true when the variable is declared inside the function, including the start() function . But when it is declared globally, like at the very top of the code and outside all functions, the value is retained on every tick. I'm referring to EA's though, I don't really fully understand the indi code, maybe it's different?

You are correct. The code you linked was declared within the function. Globally declared variables retain their value until changed in code or by restart.

Mind, indi code is very strange and reminds me of people speaking in tongues. My eyes glaze over when I try to read it.